Globalisation

Looking at recent election results, it seems like people have enough of globalisation. When the European Union started, free trade was believed to be the way to paradise. The fact that we don’t see it like that today, is not because our globalisation went too far. It is because our globalisation is one-sided.

Indeed, we see some negative consequences of globalisation. But we forget we are buying a lot of consumer goods for a price that is ridiculously low. We travel to the other end of the globe for almost no money. Take the plane in the middle of the month of November and you would expect to see only businessmen travelling? Actually, as a businessman you might feel very lonesome between the hurdles of tourists around you. The reason is: the tickets are too cheap; we don’t pay the environmental impact of the plane traffic. The government pays the bill in return for a doubtful social peace.

The reason we are still unhappy is because our economy falters and our jobs are unstable. Our economy falters because globalisation did not touch the people sovereignty in matters of budgetary household, fiscal policy, social security, unemployment rules, environmental laws, …In all these matters, we did not get a decent globalisation. As a result, high capital – multinational firms graze the best pastures worldwide and leave deserts behind.

Let me be clear with you: I am in favour of globalisation. But it needs to be a full globalisation. The climate agreements need to be accepted by all countries. All countries should implement a world-wide agreed social security. All countries should gradually harmonise their tax policies. Europe should give the example. We need more Europe, not less Europe.

I refer to my earlier blogs: “Local versus Global” and “The European Paradox”.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

I got fascinated recently by the many causes of perception differences between people. One of the most misunderstood “properties” of people is their motivation. This is important. Motivation is considered to be a key economy driver, certainly in a knowledge society, where the internal motivation, the drive, the passion are needed to make progress. Recruiters do not only assess a candidate’s knowledge and experience, but also his/her motivation to do the job. And motivation is also understood as an important factor of well-being and happiness at work, therefore essential to keep the employee in a positive, constructive mode.

Yet the Harvard Business Review published in 2003 an interesting article  entitled "Why we misread motives". We are very bad at  assessing what drives somebody else. We all know our own intrinsic drivers: creativity, pride about our work results,  recognition, new challenges, … Yet when it comes to understanding the drivers of other people, we believe they are driven by salary prospects, yearly evaluations, work result control, etc. We claim we are driven by intrinsic motivation whereas others need extrinsic motivation to get going. The study casts justified doubt on the usefulness of evaluation conversations and points out that the way we run our businesses today, with a lot of control, leaves a lot of potential unused. Control needs effort from both the controller and the one who is being controlled. Moreover, the article suggests the controlled one may even lose his intrinsic drivers if you chase him/her with external drivers.

I believe this finding is not only valuable for companies. It is also valuable in the education of children. Perhaps even for our politicians: are they really motivated to improve our society? How can they be motivated if they know that once elected, they will almost certainly be defeated by the opposition around four years later, when the next elections take place?  When we complain about politics, perhaps we should think of more “spirit” and a more inspiring way for politicians to communicate with the public and for the public to communicate with politicians.

Picture: sculpture made by Wouter Mulier near the Leuven railway station.